Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010101862026 2026:GAU-AS:10077 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail (Cancellation)/6/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM. 2: INVESTIGATING OFFICER NAMELY DIPANJALI BARUAH WSI(P) PALASHBARI POLICE STATION DIST. KAMRUP GUWAHATI ASSA VERSUS NAYAN JYOTI DAS S/O PRASANTA KUMAR DAS, VILL BARIHAT, PS PALASHBARI. DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 6003706960 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P BORTHAKUR, ADDL PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Respondent : MS N BARUAH, MR P DAS BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22-07-20 26 Heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application for cancelation of bail, made under Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023. 3. The accused, namely, Nayan Jyoti Das was granted bail by order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup, Amingaon in Special POCSO Case No. 118/2025 (Palashbari P.S. Case No. 217/2025) under Sections 127(2)/70(2)/77 of the BNS, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused the same. 5. The only ground on which the cancellation of bail has been sought, as submitted by Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP., is that notice was not issued to the victim of the case, which is in violation of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.06.2023 in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 40/2022, which are as follows: In every Bail Application/Criminal Appeal/Criminal Revision/Criminal Petition arising from cases involving offences under the POCSO Act and those covered by Section 439 (1A) CrPC; the Registry shall (i) Serve a copy of such Bail Application/ Criminal Appeal/Criminal Revision/Criminal Petition to the Public Prosecutor concerned who, in turn, shall forward the same to the Investigating Officer concerned, or the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station, through email and also as a hard copy requiring the officer(s) to apprise the victim/guardian/ support person regarding filing of such proceedings before the High Court. (ii) In every such Bail Application/Criminal Appeal/Criminal Revision/Criminal Petition filed in the High Court, it shall be mandatory to implead the victim/guardian/support person, as the case may be. While making such impleadment identity of the victim shall be properly screened strictly adhering to the mandate of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act. Upon impleadment of the victim/guardian/ support person in the Bail Application/Criminal Appeal/Criminal Revision/ Criminal Petition, as the case may be, formal notice shall be issued to such victim/guardian/support person through the Investigating Officer/Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station. It shall be the responsibility of the officer(s) to get the notice served. Page No.# 3/4 (iii) The notice issued to the victim/guardian/ support person shall also contain a stipulation that in case he/she is unable to engage a counsel of choice, services of free legal aid counsel shall be provided to represent him/her in the proceedings filed before the High Court. 6. From the above, it is seen that the direction No.(ii) is applicable in a case of petition filed before the High Court only. 7. In the instant case, we are concerned with a bail application that was allowed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per procedure, in every application for bail in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act, an extra copy is required to be submitted at the time of filing which is to be sent by the Court concerned/Public Prosecutor to the informant/victim and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted the said extra copy of the bail petition and thereafter, it was the duty of the concerned office to sent the copy to the informant/victim. 9. A perusal of the impugned order does not reflect that the informant/victim was either served with a notice or whether, he/she was represented at the time of consideration of the bail application. 10. On perusal of the record by the learned Addl. PP, the said fact could not be clearly determined. 11. It is however, fairly conceded that pursuant to the grant of bail, the accused has been regularly participating in the trial of the case and no violation of any bail condition has been reported. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhuri Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956 has observed as follows: “19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or Page No.# 4/4 grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) CrPC. 20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.” 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as outlined above and in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that no case for cancellation of bail has been made out. 14. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant